Hay Guys! New woowoo + CNN NWO video

[T.A.M.]

...Also recently over at LC, one of the admins IVXX posted his theory regarding MIHOP. In this he postulated (ouch!) that the CIA were behind OBL and paid him to recruit and train and finance the 9/11 hijackers. But what IVXX couldn't quite reach was the obvious conclusion that he was accepting there was a desire amongst some in the mid-east to attack the US. The fact that OBL could recruit these people was admission that those people were there to be recruited. IVXX had to cling on to the CT that OBL was a CIA operative, because without this his CT was without basis.

Let us use the IVXX example. Now I as a skeptic, would immediately ask this about the OBL CIA Theory:

1. Show me documented proof he was working for them?
2. If no proof is available, and hence you are speculating, than answer me this...If OBL was a CIA operative/patsie then why did they need to make the "fake" video that all the CTers claim is fake. If OBL works for the CIA, couldnt they simply ask him to make said video, instead of "faking" one.
3. If OBL is working fo CIA, than why would he initially deny responsibility for the attacks in the first place. If he was working for the CIA, and they wanted him to be the evil villain, than why would they have him initially lie, denying involvement?

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

The IVXX theory in full (with a few added comments):
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1692

Why do people get stuck on one scenario when talking about MIHOP?? People will believe a possible LIHOP (which makes the gov't just as guilty in my book) but a MIHOP scenario can't happen??

Not without some pretty good rock solid proof.

The US wanting to have an upper hand in global economics wants to have control of an oil pipeline that will run through Afghanistan. The US planned to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power months before 9/11. However they need to gain support of the US citizens to go into Afghanistan. This doesn't mean every single person in the US gov't is in on it. Let me touch on the drugs quick. Afghanistan supplies 70% of the worlds heroin. 60% of America's heroin comes from the Middle East. The Taliban destory all the opium plants in Afghanistan. After the U.S. takes out the Taliban the Northern Alliance begins to replant all the opium. What?? With the U.S. war on drugs think of the blow dealt by taking out 70% of the worlds heroin. Of course now think where the U.S. economy would be without all the laundered drug money circulating through it.

And what is the cost of the 'war on drugs' in terms of law enforcement, prisons, rehab, insurance, lost work days, breakdown of families and disintegration of the inner cities? Yep, that laundered money certainly makes an increase in the drug trade an attractive proposition. NOT!

Enter Osama Bin-Laden. Certain elemnets of the US gov't pay Osama a large sum of money to put together a group of terrorists for an attack on the US, on US soil. They also fund the operation. Osama would be the only one who would need to know the truth and could call on Jihad when putting his terrorists together. Osama has been tracked and wanted by the US since 1993 for a variety of crimes. So we have been unable to get Osama in 13 years but we got Sadam how fast?? Come on people!! You truely believe Osama has been that good at ducking us for 13 years?? WAKE UP!! This could also explain why Bin-Laden has not been indicted for the attacks of 9/11 though he has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. He also appears on the FBI's top 10 Wanted Terrorists however 9/11 is still not listed as one of his crimes. I think 5 years is enough time to update the information on the number one most wanted terrorist. Former FBI agents are suing the USG for obstructions of Al-Qaeda investigations. These agents retired because of the obstructions. That points to a little bit more than foreknowledge.

OBL is a figurehead. I give no free pass to those who carry out the terrorist acts. I don't care if someone, somewhere encourages them, trains them or finances them, it is the terrorists themselves who are the guilty ones. If the US can find enough evidence to implicate OBL then great, find him, capture him and prosecute him. But the reason for attacking afghanistan was not to kill one man, but was to destroy or disrupt a terrorist organisation.

That OBL is still seen as a hero amongst some within the mid-east and elsewhere merely confirms that the desire to attack the US and other western countries is still prevalent. But focusing on one man, like some kind of james bond villain, is purely PR.

Bin-Laden puts 19 hijackers together plus sets up two scapegoats to help the US with their "final story". The two scapegoats, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zacarias Moussaoui . Osama uses KSM's "plane operation" for the attacks to be carried out on 9/11.

Fast Forward to 9/11/2001. 19 hijackers take over 4 planes. Two are crashed into the Twin Towers in NYC. Another is crashed into the Pentagon in Washington. Another is shootdown/crashes in Shanksville, whatever you want to believe it still fits into a MIHOP scenario. The one thing this doesn't explain is Hani pulling off the final maneuver before hitting the Pentagon. You can believe it was easy to fly these planes once airborne with little expirence but if you believe that it leaves you with the problem of explaining the final maneuver of Flight 77. Auto-Pilot didn't do that. No matter what you believe about the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 it still fits into this MIHOP scenario.

So MIHOP is plausible because one of the terrorists pulled off a difficult maneuver.
However, IVXX makes that common mistake of thinking that the final outcome of the attack was precisely what was intended.
Consider:
You're going to give instructions to a fanatical follower to attack the Pentagon in the US. What do you tell him? Do you say "I want you to fly this plane and hit this part of the building"?

Or do you tell him to hijack a plane, fly to washington and aim for the centre of the Pentagon. It's a big building, so you'll be bound to hit something of importance.

So, in the event we have a plane taking a weird and tortuous path (not something one would expect from remote control or whatever other fantasy the woowoos wopuld have us believe) in order to hit the outer wall of the largest office building in the world.

Intentional? Or a mediocre pilot doing the best he can to try and hit the centre of the pentagon, fouling up on his approach, correcting this and just about managing to hit the outer wall?

There you go. You have Bin-Laden, 19 hijackers, a plane hitting the Pentagon, you have everything you were spoon fed about 9/11 but it can still be a MIHOP scenario. Maybe if someone or some Commission looked into and followed the money trail new evidence would come to light.

Can I prove this MIHOP scenario beyond the shadow of a doubt?? No I can't (except to follow the money trail) but then again no one can disprove it beyond the shadow of a doubt either. I just don't understand why people so easily buy the official story. The USG said this is the way it happened so that has to be the way it happened?? OJ said he was innocent as well. Another good reason the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the 9/11 money trail.

Ultimately, the only thing IVXX thinks he has going for him is to follow the 'money trail'.

And yet we know that the mission cost very little (it's not as if they had to buy any expensive equipment or explosives) and the money trail is very easy to hide.

MIHOP? My arse.

 

[Loss Leader]

You know, people forget that back in '89-'91, people were using the phrase "New World Order" nonstop. When the Berlin Wall came down (and the USSR collapsed), every foreign-relations editorial was about who would be the next enemy, how nations would align themselves now that the capitalism/communism distinction had disppeared, and what the foreign policy of the world's only superpower should look like.

It was not until the anti-globalists of later in the 90's that NWO came to mean, to some, a global domination of capital by an oligarchy of banks and corporations.

 

[Yurebiz]

Yurebiz:

Let me ask you this. Is the reason you have a big problem with why WTC7 collapsed because of the way in which collapsed...ie it looked just like a CD?

If your answer is yes, than answer me this. Have you seen a skyscraper that size comedown (collapse) via any other means besides CD?

If you answer no, than answer me this. If you only have CD to compare to the collapse of WTC7, than is there any other way, that could be presented to you, that you would accept as the cause of collapse for WTC7?

If yes, please tell me?

TAM

Well It's not just the way it LOOKS like... It really did collapse quite fast... I'm not going to say FASTER THAN free fall or EXACTLY free fall but it was somewhere below a 150% free fall speed. Official papers have yet to release a paper which explains it completely. And I can't buy the "heavy debris damage" associated with it... since there's no visual, hard evidence to account for. And didn't the NIST believe the reason why the steel cores at the WTC towers had their fire insulation removed by the plane crashes? well there wasn't any planes there... I doubt minor debris damage near the ground would remove any insulation in the core, at all.

What I'm saying is that I find it hard for a massive building like that, (about 300 feet away from the north tower?) take more damage than any other building at the same distance, and still fall as if the core columns had been taken away...

Hmm.. yeah the only way i see it colapsing that fast is if something happened with at least half of the core columns. At least. And office fires would never be able to do that, especially with fire insulated columns, or reinforced concrete ones. If it did, i'm sure the necessary building standards would have been changed by now. Which they didnt. May i go as far as to say that if i wanted to rebuild WTC7 exactly how it was, i wouldn't have any trouble with state standards? I'm not quite sure, but I heard so somewhere. Yeah, on the internetz :S

I don't think anyone has ever seen a skyscraper collapse at all, before 9/11. Even in controlled demolition history, the buildings aren't as 40 stories tall. If there was ever been, i sure would like to see it. It could reveal a lot to laymen like me!

All i say about WTC7 could be said the same to the twin towers thought. I just tend to dismiss the twin towers collapses because of the many experts involved which say it did collapse like that because of the fires. I just save my time from being debunked as a layman in the demolitions expertise. Well, and it did had massive planes crashing at high speeds at it. I can buy that.

I'm not fiercely arguing it was a CD at WTC7 thought. Only go as far as um.. about 80% chance? Hahah... oh well.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yurebiz:

1. There are numerous eye witness accounts from firemen on the scene that debris from the collapse of the second tower guaged out a 10-15 storey hole on the south side of WTC7. In my opinion that does not qualify as "minor" damage, but as MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT Damage. Do you not believe the firemen, or do you think that a 10-15 storey hole in the side of a building is NOT SUBSTANTIAL?

2. The preliminary report from NIST on WTC7 gives as their "most likely" explanation for the collapse as what? Explosives? CD? No, they give as the most likely cause, failure of elements of the structure itself as a result of debris damage and raging, uncontrolled, prolonged fires. While they are creating a final report (under pressure to quell all the riffraff rumours about explosives) that will include "entertaining" explosive type scenarios, I have severe doubts that their final report will differ much, if at all, from the preliminary report.

Yure, if the final report from NIST on WTC7 addresses the "explosives" scenario, and in the end still says the most likely cause was I have stated above, will you give up on the CTs?

TAM

 

[babazaroni]

YureBiz, you should look into the design detail of the twin towers. They were quite unique for the time. It was a rectangle in rectangle design with the two rectangles connected by lightweight trusses with a large hat truss system at the top. Knowing more about the design will help you understand how it could collapse that way.

 

[uk_dave]

yurebiz,

you accept that WTC7 sustained some damage from the collapse of the WTC tower, right? I mean, it was on fire and there is photographic evidence of some damage to the parapet at roof level and the corner of the building, yes?

So, take a moment and think about this.

Two of the tallest structures in the world have just collapsed and this collapse has impacted upon other buildings in the vicinity.

WTC7 is one of those buildings and is on fire. The fire was caused by the WTC tower collapse.

WTC7 would not have been on fire if the WTC towers had not collapsed.

Therefore the collapse of the WTC towers had sufficient impact on WTC7 to cause fires over several floors.

So, we have, regardless of eyewitness testimony about the amount of structural damage caused to WTC7, a building which was not hit by planes but which is now on fire.

Based upon those facts alone we can reasonably deduce that WTC7 sustained damage from the fall of the towers.

Now, if you were presenting a scenario where a building which was totally unaffected by the WTC towers collapse had catastrophically failed, then I would be suspicious.

But WTC7 was damaged.

The probability that the damage that structure sustained was severe is borne out by the fact that it collapsed.

No flashes of explosives and no sound of explosives.

Just an unknown amount of damage leading to fires.

So, what do you really want to put your money on?

 

[T.A.M.]

I suspect their final report will say something like the following:

"While NIST cannot conclusively rule out the use of Explosives in the collapse of WTC7, to this date no physical evidence has been provided to support such a scenario/cause."

Of course, the truthers will have a field day with this, claiming the lack of denial as admission of it as truth...

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

Yurebiz, what do you think of the following post, and why?

GermaniumGeorge

If any of you have not seen the pictures of the demon likenesses in the pictures of the towers on 911, [HERE] are some of them. I have no desire to discuss any of the ideas, religions, or philosophies around these images and the sites they're on, but I would really like to find a high resolution image of the one photo that had the appearance of a demon's head spewing from the top of the banana-peel collapse.

To see what image I'm talking about, go [HERE] and scroll down to the photo that has Dellamorte imposed on it.

If anyone can help me find a clean and high-res file, I would appreciate it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2261

 

[Yurebiz]

I suspect their final report will say something like the following:

"While NIST cannot conclusively rule out the use of Explosives in the collapse of WTC7, to this date no physical evidence has been provided to support such a scenario/cause."

Of course, the truthers will have a field day with this, claiming the lack of denial as admission of it as truth...

TAM

Yes, I hope they'll provide something other than that. It would be just stating the obvious, unless they actually make some small scale models or something alike.

uk_dave I was planning to post that when I had 15+ postcount! You ruined my fun in making a new thread!
And well, that's evidence on the devil being in on it, obviously.

 

[twinstead]

Welcome to the forum, Yurebiz. You seem to be a thoughtful, articulate poster, especially considering your age.

I hope you stick around for a while. There is a lot to learn here.

 

[Yurebiz]

Welcome to the forum, Yurebiz. You seem to be a thoughtful, articulate poster, especially considering your age.

I hope you stick around for a while. There is a lot to learn here.

Thank you. I hope so too. I might get bored if there isn't any new convincing theories on our side thought.After all, conspiracies without theories aren't nearly as attracting, you know.

 

[maccy]

Well It's not just the way it LOOKS like... It really did collapse quite fast... I'm not going to say FASTER THAN free fall or EXACTLY free fall but it was somewhere below a 150% free fall speed. Official papers have yet to release a paper which explains it completely. And I can't buy the "heavy debris damage" associated with it... since there's no visual, hard evidence to account for. And didn't the NIST believe the reason why the steel cores at the WTC towers had their fire insulation removed by the plane crashes? well there wasn't any planes there... I doubt minor debris damage near the ground would remove any insulation in the core, at all.

What I'm saying is that I find it hard for a massive building like that, (about 300 feet away from the north tower?) take more damage than any other building at the same distance, and still fall as if the core columns had been taken away...

Hmm.. yeah the only way i see it colapsing that fast is if something happened with at least half of the core columns. At least. And office fires would never be able to do that, especially with fire insulated columns, or reinforced concrete ones. If it did, i'm sure the necessary building standards would have been changed by now. Which they didnt. May i go as far as to say that if i wanted to rebuild WTC7 exactly how it was, i wouldn't have any trouble with state standards? I'm not quite sure, but I heard so somewhere. Yeah, on the internetz :S

I don't think anyone has ever seen a skyscraper collapse at all, before 9/11. Even in controlled demolition history, the buildings aren't as 40 stories tall. If there was ever been, i sure would like to see it. It could reveal a lot to laymen like me!

All i say about WTC7 could be said the same to the twin towers thought. I just tend to dismiss the twin towers collapses because of the many experts involved which say it did collapse like that because of the fires. I just save my time from being debunked as a layman in the demolitions expertise. Well, and it did had massive planes crashing at high speeds at it. I can buy that.

I'm not fiercely arguing it was a CD at WTC7 thought. Only go as far as um.. about 80% chance? Hahah... oh well.

Yurebiz, some suggested reading on WTC7:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html - a brief article, summarising well what NIST has ascertained so far.

ETA: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf - NIST WTC7 Technical Approach and Status Summary

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf - NIST Presentation about WTC7 collapse

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf - NIST Interim Report on WTC7

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05137.pdf - lots of details on the fuel oil distribution system

http://www.911myths.com/WTC_CD.pdf - brief consideration of possible CD scenarios, focusing on WTC7.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (word document)
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf (pdf version)
Gravy's WTC7 paper - especially good on the testimony of the firefighters who were there that day.

Also:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

 

[The Doc]

Urebiz,

Welcome to the forums. Now I don't mean to be harsh, so just stop me if I am.

You sound like the type of conspiracy theorist that believes this stuff because it's entertaining. First off you told us that if the WTC7 NIST report concludes other than a controlled demolition you'll just become a LIHOPer. Why?

I'm going to ask you something. Do you find conspiracy theories entertaining? I may very well be wrong, but to me it sounds like you're the kind of guy who buys into this stuff because it's not as boring as the official story.

 

[maccy]

I suspect their final report will say something like the following:

"While NIST cannot conclusively rule out the use of Explosives in the collapse of WTC7, to this date no physical evidence has been provided to support such a scenario/cause."

Of course, the truthers will have a field day with this, claiming the lack of denial as admission of it as truth...

TAM

They're going to be a bit more detailed than that. Here is a summary from a December presentation:

Hypothetical Blast Analysis

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.

• Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against window strength.
• Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
• Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

• Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf page 11

I think it is likely that NIST will detail the events that should have occurred, had explosives been used.

 

[volatile]

They're going to be a bit more detailed than that. Here is a summary from a December presentation:

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf page 11
[/list]I think it is likely that NIST will detail the events that should have occurred, had explosives been used.

Wow. That's fascinating.

Doesn't that show that they're taking the Truth movement a little too seriously, though?

 

[Horatius]

The aspect I find fascinating is how WTC7 could collapse like that and the government completely fail to explain it... If a report comes out where they do explain.. then I'll probably be more of a OCTer, mostly 70%, altho I would still consider a LIHOP for about 30%.

It must be weird to see me using percentages to beliefs like that, but that's the way I can express how I believe things might have happened on 9/11. As long as there's no 100% proof of anything, I tend hold a share for each possibility to be fair with everything..
Thanks!

I think most of us here will say that it's not wrong to have questions about such an unusual event. What's wrong with the majority of Ctists is they really suck at finding answers to their questions, and refuse to accept other's answers. So far you seem to be avoiding the worst of these pitfalls, so we'll see where we can go from here.

You allude to this in a later post, but I'd like to point out that "the government completely fail to explain it" isn't really accurate. I'd describe it more as "the government failed to explain it completely", which of course is what the expected NIST report will hopefully do. Many CTists point to the delay in producing this report as some sort of evidence of somehting-or-other, but if you read the NIST websites, you'll see there were good reasons for the delay.

While it's true that a good skeptic should base their judgement on all the available evidence, we don't really have to wait until one particular piece of evidence is available before making some preliminary judgements. In the abscence of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7, we can't really say with confidence that we know how the collapse progressed, we can say with some confidence that is wasn't a "traditional" CD, because of the lack of evidence for such a thing, which evidence would be easily available, without waiting for the NIST report.

Such evidence would be clear-cut evidence of explosions timed to produce the collapse as seen - flashes, jets of material, sudden loud explosive noises. Things that we see and hear in almost every real CD video, but which appear in none of the videos of WTC7.

So we can conclude with some confidence that WTC7 wasn't a traditional CD.

 

[maccy]

The US wanting to have an upper hand in global economics wants to have control of an oil pipeline that will run through Afghanistan. The US planned to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power months before 9/11. However they need to gain support of the US citizens to go into Afghanistan. This doesn't mean every single person in the US gov't is in on it. Let me touch on the drugs quick. Afghanistan supplies 70% of the worlds heroin. 60% of America's heroin comes from the Middle East. The Taliban destory all the opium plants in Afghanistan. After the U.S. takes out the Taliban the Northern Alliance begins to replant all the opium. What?? With the U.S. war on drugs think of the blow dealt by taking out 70% of the worlds heroin. Of course now think where the U.S. economy would be without all the laundered drug money circulating through it.

And what is the cost of the 'war on drugs' in terms of law enforcement, prisons, rehab, insurance, lost work days, breakdown of families and disintegration of the inner cities? Yep, that laundered money certainly makes an increase in the drug trade an attractive proposition. NOT!

According to this UN Drug Report, the export value of Opium from Afghanistan in 2005 $2.7bn with $560m going to the farmers, that's 4100 metric tonnes of opium.
source http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_chap3_opium.pdf page 4

Estimating the value of the trade is tough so I'm going to guess. Going by a US retail price of $71 a gramme, the value of this as heroin is around $290bn. Except the rest of the world doesn't pay anything like as much for it's heroin (the European average is less than half that) so I'm going to make a massive guess and halve the retail figure to $145bn. Assuming the CIA is managing to run some huge smuggling operation (evidence for this - none) I'm going to give them a massive 10% of my guess of the street value of all the heroin that comes from Afganistan and say $15bn. Would this be worth it? How much has the US spent on being in Afghanistan and Iraq, so far? Also, the price of Heroin has been coming down and demand remains flat, so why would it be in the CIA's interests to increase supply? Surely this would cut into their profits?

ETA: Also, criminals don't pay taxes, governments like tax income.

source for world retail and wholesale prices: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_chap5_opium.pdf

UN world drug report 2006: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/world_drug_report.html

Oh, and the oil pipeline is a myth. It's not oil, it's gas. There's no major US involvement. The proposal is very expensive and not certain to make money. More about it in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

 

[maccy]

Wow. That's fascinating.

Doesn't that show that they're taking the Truth movement a little too seriously, though?

Possibly, it's always a tough judgment. I think they're aware of how these things can fester and grow if they're not confronted. I suspect that NASA regrets not having nipped the whole moon hoax thing in the bud.

Of course, at the moment truthers will gleefully tell you that NIST are "considering explosives".

 

[volatile]

Oh, and the oil pipeline is a myth. It's not oil, it's gas. There's no major US involvement. The proposal is very expensive and not certain to make money. More about it in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

Not completely true.

You'll note this news story (and there are plenty others) which shows that the Iraqi oil industry will not be nationalised (as, say, the Saudi oil industry is), and that US companies will be bidding on the contracts. There's a lot of oil in Iraq, and it's worth a lot of money.

Now, I'm not saying the war was staged purely because of oil, but to say that energy considerations weren't high on the list is stretching things, and those close to the administration (see: Halliburton, for starters) have made decent financial gains:

"They have made a killing" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1983817,00.html